As important as economic and financial affairs. The debate currently taking place on the future of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is every bit as important for the future of Europe as the one on the economy and finance which is virtually monopolising attention and dominating discussion. I know that this is not a view shared by everyone: the notion that agriculture is of secondary importance to the EU and could in part be used as a bargaining chip to win concessions in other areas continues to have its devotees. I would reject this view out of hand, convinced as I am that safeguarding farming throughout the length and breadth of Europe is crucial from all points of view: self-sufficiency in food in times of crisis or when faced with some other pressure; protection of nature in a world where, disastrously, it is not being shown the respect it is due; protecting cultures and civilisations that are thousands of years old; protecting animals from cruelty and unnecessary suffering. I have no intention here of re-engaging in a battle which does not exist for me. My aim is, more modestly, to offer some thoughts on the negotiations on agriculture currently taking place in the EU.
These negotiations, I would point out, are taking place within the framework of the 2014-2020 financial perspectives. Thus they are not directed at the management of the CAP as it exists today or the measures to be taken to address some emergency or market development. First observation: the information we receive on the negotiations is often incomplete since it gives only the position of a particular government or some pressure group. To my knowledge, our newsletter is practically the only source which provides an overview of the talks, setting out the positions of the respective participants and indicating where there is disagreement, alongside the Commission's defence of its proposals. Our comprehensive report of the ministerial meeting on 26 April detailed the national stances on the different points under discussion. Second remark: virtually none of the negotiators question the sum allocated to the CAP but, rather, how this sum is shared out and the ending of certain unfair or unjustified expenditure.
My comments will be restricted to noting and highlighting some controversial points.
(a) Non-agricultural activities. Some CAP payments do not go to finance agricultural production but other activities which have gradually taken over in areas previously reserved for farming: airports, railways, and sports areas, such as golf courses, for example, and so on. The Court of Auditors has flagged up these anomalies, and the broad trend is to end these payments. The principle is clear but application raises a number of issues (see following point).
(b) Definition of “active farmer”. Often the activities mentioned above involve real agricultural activity, thus making it necessary to define just exactly what an active farmer is, while trying to avoid over-complication that could lead to excessive red tape. The idea of leaving it up to each country to make its own definition has been rejected by Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos, who feels that there has to be uniformity of definition and who has suggested a number of criteria. Governments are divided. I would direct you to the already mentioned newsletter which sets out national stances and details.
(c) Gradual alignment of member states. The most politically important and financially controversial point in the negotiations is the gradual equalisation of CAP funding between those member states which joined the EU recently and the older member states. Initially, there had to be some differentiation: cost of living and wage differences between the two groups of countries were such that equal CAP payments would have created a category of privileged citizens in the more recent member states. It has now been accepted that the historic references used to calculate the individual support for farmers cannot continue indefinitely. However, how to bring about change is a matter for negotiation and any change will necessarily be gradual.
(d) Correction of excessive payments. As Commissioner Ciolos has stated, a small number of recipients receive disproportionately high payments, and the principle of capping and greater modulation should be taken as accepted. But here too, problems arise over how to achieve the objectives: in particular, care must be taken to prevent any negative impact on jobs. Mr Ciolos points out that the large-scale recipients number only a few thousand across the whole of the EU; the money saved could be used to finance innovative projects that would help all farmers, including the largest.
Observations and sometimes critical remarks. This overview of the state of negotiations (based, I say again, on the information published in our newsletter) requires a few reflections. The negotiations are taking place essentially inside agricultural circles, which themselves acknowledge the need for reform. The tendency for all to defend the advantages and guarantees they enjoy is perfectly understandable. However, a number of additional points cannot be ignored.
The comments of the Court of Auditors must be taken into account. On 17 April, the Court published its opinion on the European Commission proposals. In its generally favourable assessment, it notes, however, that: - the legislative framework is still too complex; - the cost of managing the direct payments scheme could rise by 15%; there is no real simplification; the objective of improving producers' performances is not clearly laid down; the definition of “active farmer” is neither clear nor obvious and the risk remains that payments will continue to be made to some who exercise no agricultural activity whatsoever; the clear direct advantages of the objective of greener farming for those who comply with the greening rules are not made clear; no obvious effective encouragement is made to young farmers.
These remarks, I repeat, relate to the Commission's initial proposal; they cannot take account of developments resulting from the on-going negotiations among the member states. The Commission has restricted itself to commenting that it will examine all remarks and suggestions closely. At the same time, too, the issue of the greening of the CAP has been discussed in depth by the Stockholm Group, which brings together some dozen member states; our newsletter of yesterday provided a full account of the group's fresh suggestions.
An alternative plan? May I point out, too, that our newsletter no 10600 reported on an alternative proposal for the CAP from the momagri think tank. This proposal advocates that funding for farming be linked to changes in market prices: farmers' income would thus be stabilised at a cost much lower than at present. An equilibrium price would be set for key products, with a ceiling and base price; if the market price falls, support for producers increases, if it rises, a variable solidarity tax will be imposed, so that a reserve fund can be built up to be used to finance security aid. Analysis of changes in cereal and dairy prices (which are eligible for most types of aid and which affect animal production prices) over the period from 2006 to 2010 allowed momagri to calculate that savings of €8 billion per year could be made on CAP spending, with only one year (2009) where spending increased. Is this a proposal that merits serious consideration or worthless ramblings? I cannot answer that question.
Inevitable starting point. I believe that I have given those readers who do not follow the agricultural negotiations regularly a comprehensive overview, with a few personal thoughts.
While the need to safeguard and build up European agriculture is acknowledged, other points have also to be taken into consideration, such as: (1) relations with non-EU producer countries; (2) international trade; (3) ecological and environmental requirements. Agriculture ministers and producers cannot decide on all of this among themselves.
The starting point, however, cannot be denied: Europe has to be able to feed its people, to protect its nature and countryside and not to accept the decline of its civilisation and traditions. (FR/transl.rt)